Subject: Re: telnet problem
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 06/30/1998 18:04:41
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> [telnet BINARY negotiation]
> Ken Hornstein writes:
> >Hmmm .... I dunno. I mean, if both sides support BINARY, then it's
> >only a win, right? Or perhaps I don't understand BINARY as well as
> >I thought I did. The only time that this is a loss that I can see
> >is when people say they can do BINARY, but can't.
> I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
> I think it's a mistake for telnetd to _initiate_ the process which
> turns on BINARY. It shouldn't do that unless the client asks for it,
> or unless the user frobs the tty into a state where BINARY is more
Can telnet do that?
For reference, the first (and only mention) of binary is a:
td: send do BINARY
in the -D report.
> (If only because it's busted a telnet client which used to work ;).
> If the user asks for binary, sure, let telnetd go ahead. But in the
> absence of any mechanism for both sides to establish what "BINARY"
> means, telnetd shouldn't be turning on BINARY, just off its own bat.
I think the problem's really that a number of clients, including
MacSamson, will negotiate BINARY but still send NVT codes, which aren't
supposed to be in a BINARY stream. At least as far as we could tell from